RE: +++ SEC Rules Change Ballot+++
Hi Paul (E),
The 30 days was kept sacred for the full ballot period of a draft. We even
took it to be 35.
It is not a time management issue from the side of the officers in the
Working Groups. It is more a matter that industry needs the standards at an
even higher pace and that we need to get results within plenary to interim
The original intent of the change came from me. It was only to (1) enable
electronic ballots in the working groups and remove the 5 days for postage
from the mandatory time the ballot had to be open and to (2) extent the
ballots for regulatory matters as those people ask industry to come back
within 30 days and then wait a year to respond. (But that is not always
their fault, there are so many barking dogs around that they have to prevent
them to bite)
But then people were not agreeing to my style of the change, hence this
extended time to get the change approved.
> From: EastmanPS@aol.com[SMTP:EastmanPS@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 15:15
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: +++ SEC Rules Change Ballot+++
> I caution you to consider the intent of the original 30 day time limit.
> little of that time was for actual delivery of the ballot. The greatest
> portion was to allow for the fact that people go on business trips and
> vacations that may keep them out of touch fro a considerable time (some of
> do turn off our electronic connections on vacations). Add to this a
> for adequate review of the material and it doesn't leave much time for a
> reduction. Be careful that you do not disenfranchise anyone in the
> of trying to make up for poor time management.
> -- Regards, Paul Eastman
> Paul Eastman
> RF Networks, Inc.
> 10201 N. 21st Avenue, Unit 9
> Phoenix, AZ 85021
> (602) 861-3652
> Fax: (602) 861-0251
> "Worrying about what's right is always more
> important than worrying about who's right."